Talk:ATF gunwalking scandal

Wholesale rewrite?

Given the revelations of the Fortune magazine article, namely that there was no policy of walking guns and that only one ATF agent, the purported whistleblower himself, ever actually walked any guns, doesn't this article need a wholesale rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetMeLogIn (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. At this point I don't think we can assume that the Fortune account is any more valid than the rest. In fact, since there are currently far more sources claiming a different chain of events from Fortune, it might be best to stick with that as the main narrative of the article. I do think there need to be changes to reflect both points of view, though. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging ATF gunwalking scandal and Project Gunrunner because the two articles are about the same thing, just with different names. I don't know or care which one should be the resulting name if the merge does in fact take place. Magenta 447 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No. As the ATF agents (Dodson et al.) objected to Operation Fast and Furious: the "gunwalking" was contrary to all their training and prior operations under the over-all Project Gunrunner, where SOP was to identify straw purchasers with cooperating gun dealers, follow the purchasers to the actual buyers for the cartel, and interdict them before the guns could reach the streets or cross the borders, usually when the straw purchasers handed the guns off to the actual buyers. That's like calling the "Bridge Too Far" botched raid equivalent to WWII. Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious were operations within Gunrunner an umbrella project with different goals and with several other operations that have not been scandals. The tactics of "gunwalking" were anomalies. --Naaman Brown (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, as noted at Talk:Project Gunrunner. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Content from Operation Fast and Furious

When Operation Fast and Furious was merged into this article, a lot of the content from that article was not added to this article. I have just now added the content from that article to this one. Magenta 447 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify - this was a merge that took place several months ago, after consensus for the merge was reached at talk:Operation Fast and Furious. I simply moved info from that article to this one, which is something that should have been done several months ago. Magenta 447 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of that info already exists in this article, and would thus be duplicated. Additionally, some of the information you have inserted here isn't directly related to the "scandal", and is simply background information better left in another article ... Project Gunrunner comes to mind. I see that you have also inserted information here that is tagged as "citation needed". Information shouldn't be introduced into an article if proper citations for that information are not present. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I had just copied that info from Operation Fast and Furious, but I agree with you that citations are necessary. But it should have been copied months ago during the merge. I didn't mean to duplicate any info, but those dupes should be removed individually, instead of erasing everything. Magenta 447 (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I was the one who finalized the merge, and I felt that all information (or at least everything relevant) existed here. In any case, it's possible that there was a minor omission here or there, but there is no doubt that almost everything was in this article before you started editing. Rather than copying large tracts of text, you should read through both and insert anything you feel is missing. Moving so much all over the place is disruptive. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

For example, part of your focus seems to be on AG Holder's controversial testimony. Before you started editing, this article contained the following, separated due to the chronology of the section:

"On May 3, Attorney General Holder testified to the House Judiciary Committee that he did not know who approved Fast and Furious, but that it was being investigated. He also stated that he "probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks," a claim which would later become controversial.[56][57] [...]

In October, documents were found showing that Attorney General Holder had been sent briefings on Fast and Furious as early as July 2010, contradicting his May statement that he had known about it for only a few weeks. The briefings were from the National Drug Intelligence Center and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer. In response, the Justice Department stated that Holder misunderstood the question from the committee; he had known about Fast and Furious, but he didn't know the details of the tactics being used.[57]"

The second paragraph is still there for you to read. So, rather than adding new information, you have duplicated information and changed the flow of writing in that section. I consider this unhelpful. If you agree, I suggest you change or remove it, and then take a breath and read the article in full before making extra changes. If you disagree, why do you disagree? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 09:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hazydan. In the confusion during all of his duplicate insertions and revert-warring, I also inadvertantly replicated existing content. I've reverted the article back to its stable state, with the only difference being the addition of a (completely inappropriate, in my opinion) merge-request tag. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It probably got a little confusing. Thanks. Agree with you on the merge. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 04:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Source Material

Original Source Material can be found on this blog http://waronguns.blogspot.com/. The direct linked is block as spam, doesn't appear to be a spam site http://www.examinerdotcom/article/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-one. The material is very detailed and is original source material. This information may be helpful in understanding the background on the scandal. The blocking of this material is very disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamLiw (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC) LiamLiw (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the original source material used by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, who just won the 2012 National Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting. LiamLiw (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think examiner is blocked because it is considered unreliable. The same is generally assumed of personal blogs. See WP:SOURCES for info on reliable sources. CBS News is considered a reliable source, so if you like them, I'd suggest finding those articles and use them as a source of information on this subject. Can you tell me where you read that Attkisson's reporting was from these sources? This is more for my personal curiosity than anything else. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed WP:SOURCES and I don't see a conflict with adding these sites as external references. The material seems to fits the criteria. LiamLiw (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Email Log correspondence with Cordrea and Attkisson http://www.examinerdotcom/slideshow/an-email-record. LiamLiw (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing at that link indicates that Attkisson's reporting was from those sources. Why not use a news report by Attkisson to remove all doubt? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see WP:ELNO for info specific to external links. The sources you are linking may be useful to journalists as original (primary?) sources as you claim, but they are against wikipedia policies. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:ELNO, I'm not seeing the specifics of what your talking about that primary sources are against wikipedia policies. Can you direct me to it. Otherwise it looks like the site is blacklisted, cannot find a reason for the blacklisting either no record, which is interesting. LiamLiw (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hazydan wasn't saying that primary sources are against Wikipedia policies. Examiner.com is indeed blacklisted as an unreliable source for use at Wikipedia. Your link to a blog (which you claim is a primary source) also does not meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. If you feel that information from those sites has been used by legitimate journalists, then you should find the related reporting by those journalists and cite those as sources. If you still feel a particular source qualifies for use on Wikipedia, you should raise that issue at WP:RSN. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I was about to provide a similar response. Regarding examiner, I hadn't looked at the ban record itself before, so I found it here for anyone who is curious. It looks like there have been subsequent discussions since then, but the decision remains in effect.

There are a number of points at WP:ELNO that clearly apply to the waronguns blog, and other issues that at least make linking to it questionable. See points 11 and 13 for example. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't realize how examiner.com worked. LiamLiw (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

"Dissident" ATF agents? Wouldn't that more correctly be described as "whistle-blowing ATF agents" or perhaps "ATF agents unsatisfied with their superiors' handling of the operation"? Article appears slanted with a sensationalist, anti-ATF, anti-administration bent - which I suppose is understandable given that Wikipedia sources from the media which isn't exactly going to make tons of money with NPOV, methodical and slow analysis. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't interpret the word dissident that way, but you may be right. On the other hand, whistleblower has its own POV connotations (implies someone telling the truth about illegal/immoral actions, and at personal risk). I'll give it some thought. I've had to deal with a lot of editors who thought the article wasn't anti-ATF and sensationalist enough, so we have to be doing something right. Regarding your edit, "fewer than" is not POV, and "around" is simply less precise. The source seems to be inaccessible, so I'll try to find another copy and see what it says. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See my edit. I do think the wording is better now, actually. Thanks. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:UCN Operation Fast and Furious

I understand the rationale for creating a separate article 'ATF gunwalking scandal' in addition to the then-existing 'Operation Fast and Furious' article, but I totally disagree with the conclusion (by just five editors) to subsequently dissolve 'Operation Fast and Furious' into 'ATF gunwalking scandal' (see 'Talk:Operation Fast and Furious#lets make a new article' and Talk:Operation Fast and Furious#Merge proposal straw poll). The WP:UCN / WP:COMMONNAME guideline plainly states, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." IMHO, "Operation Fast and Furious" is about a million times more recognizable than "ATF gunwalking scandal".
Unless there are serious objections, tomorrow or the next day I'll copy over this article's 'Operation Fast and Furious' discussion to that article title. Per the WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline, I suppose we can consider this article as "the main article", rename this article as plural ('ATF gunwalking scandals', eg both Project Gunrunner AND Operation Fast and Furious), and finally per WP:CONTENTFORKING make sure "the handling of the subject ['Fast and Furious'] in the main article ['ATF gunwalking scandals'] is condensed to a brief summary". I can do all that, but thought it wise to pause for other comments. The name 'Operation Fast and Furious' should never have been discarded. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm aware of the rule, but I don't think you are applying it correctly. The rule you are talking about should apply when you have 2 synonymous names for one topic (Normandy landings vs Operation Neptune), which isn't the case here. To explain: first of all, Project Gunrunner was an umbrella effort to stop gun smuggling. There have been many operations under that umbrella that are constructive, completely non-scandalous and not notable. There were around 4 operations under the umbrella that involved gunwalking, which is the scandal (and it is one scandal, not several, even if there were different operations). That is the purpose of this article. It is true that "Operation Fast and Furious" is more commonly heard than "ATF gunwalking scandal" or something similar, but OFF covers only a specific part of the topic. The important question is: What is the most appropriate name for the topic as a whole? Given WP rules, I think ATF gunwalking scandal is it, or at least close. Once you have solved that question, you then need to move on to justifying a WP:SPLIT (it's more a split than a fork, and forks are discouraged anyway), which should be justified by size or content relevance, which I don't think it is. In my opinion and my understanding of guidelines, this article is not long or detailed enough to justify a split. Additionally, I think any reasonable person who reads the article as a whole would agree that cutting out the part about OFF, and moving it to a new article, would be detrimental to this article and produce a less informative new one. If others disagree I'd be interested to hear why. As a final note, I don't think the number of involved editors who made the decision is relevant, but since you currently have no consensus whatsoever, I find your mention of it ironic. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 23:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons as User:Hazydan. —Compdude¹²³ 02:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah - While I didn't comment during the merge discussion, I would have joined in agreement with the unanimous decision of the five who did. The name "Operation Fast and Furious" has not been discarded, as you say, but still exists as a redirect to this article -- so not a single reader will get lost when seeking information specific to that subtopic. In fact, this article (ATF gunwalking scandal) is the number one hit on a general Google search for "Operation Fast and Furious". Stripping the OF&F content from this article, and placing it out of context in a minimalized article will only serve to misinform the reader, and I know that certainly isn't your intent. With Wikipedia article names obviously not the real issue here, I'm left wondering what the motivation is behind a proposal to move that subsection out of this article. The actual reasoning wasn't given above. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

Congress contempt charge for US Attorney General Holder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18528798. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

True, that's probably why there seems to be a spike in interest. Hopefully I'll get to it soon if no one else does first. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 03:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gunwalking from 2006??

In light of this article - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282606/fast-furious-was-bushs-fault-andrew-c-mccarthy# - should this sentence be modified to distinguish between a "gunwalking" operation and a "controlled delivery" operation? "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011."

I know little about this subject and the history but was surprised to see the two programs lumped together. PRONIZ (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are citing an opinion piece of questionable factual value. Reliable sources show gunwalking happening in both cases. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 21:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Operation Confusion

There seems to be some confusion, especially with the way sources are being used, between Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious. Wide receiver only had a dozen or so losses, where Fast and Furious had hundreds. Some of the references being used in the Wide Receiver section apply to Fast and Furious. While Wide Receiver is mentioned, the facts being cited apply to Fast and Furious. Would someone help clean up the two sections? -- Korentop (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you be specific? If you are talking about the edit you made, that statement is backed up in the given sources as relating to Wide Receiver. Keep in mind there were at least 4 separate gunwalking operations. The rest of the section you edited itself refers to another of the operations which lost about 12 weapons. Meanwhile, Fast and Furious sold over 2000 weapons and is probably still missing more than half of them, so all the numbers are completely different. I don't know where you are getting your information. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 18:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has major flaws that misinform and confuse the reader

This article jumbles together much of the information regarding "Operation Wide Receiver" and "Operation Fast and Furious" without distinguishing between the two. Here are some differences that should be mentioned in the article, but are not:

The first operation was done with the full knowledge, permission, and cooperation of the Mexican government. The second was done in secret, without any of those things.

The first operation used RFID tags to track the guns, which were followed by government agents and helicopters, and eventually retrieved. The second operation made no attempt to track or retrieve the guns.

The first operation isn't known to have killed any Mexican civilians. The second killed 200.

The first operation was done with the intent of going after the gun runners, drug dealers, and other criminals. According to this article from CBS news, the second operation was done with the intent of creating a new excuse to pass more gun control laws.

The first operation never tried to hide any information. The second did try to hide information, which resulted in a high ranking government official being voted in contempt by a Congressional committee.

This article needs to be improved to reflect these things.

87442 Charles (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I)

I do not see where the article "jumbles together much of the information regarding" the multiple gunwalking operation. With regard to the 5 examples you gave, can you please provide supporting reliable sources? I see that you have supplied a single source that you claim shows "the second operation was done with the intent of creating a new excuse to pass more gun control laws". That sounded strange and interested me, so I carefully read the source you provided and discovered that you have misread -- and you have it backwards. What the source really says is that the ATF wanted to use Operation F&F gun sale information to support its request for multiple rifle sale reporting requirements. The intent of the operation was to track the guns to the higher-level traffickers and key cartel members; not to create an excuse for gun laws (which doesn't make sense anyway -- the operation didn't force anyone to try to buy these rifles). We have to be careful to differentiate between actual facts and partisan spin and misrepresentation of those facts. (A gunwalking sting operation "killed 200 civilians", instead of criminals killing civillians...?) The Wikipedia article already notes the ATF's interest in using F&F to support their request for more reporting requirements ... what reliably sourced information would you have it convey instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a sockpuppet, the same user as Magenta 447 and was just banned. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That was obvious before I responded, but one must always keep up the AGF-pretense nonetheless ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh...and a good job you do of it! hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

completely agree with the first commenter. The attempts to claim that Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious are really the same operation, conducted in the same manner is a strategy taken directly from the Democratic Party's playbook. As has been pointed out, they were completely separate operations, and only Wide Receiver was conducted with the knowledge and participation of the Mexican government. Nor have there been any evidence of a cover-up unearthed in relation to Wide Receiver. Trying to link the two is a pretty obvious attempt to shift blame away from the Bush administration. That an entry that is supposed to be related to Fast and Furious spends so much time discussing Wide Receiver is a dead giveaway.74.141.154.28 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC

This article covers all gunwalking, and the space dedicated exclusively to Wide Receiver is exactly two paragraphs. The two operations are clearly differentiated here, but to claim that there are no links between them besides those invented for political expediency is not a claim backed up by the facts, like them or not. By the way, Rep Issa himself recently admitted that he had no evidence connecting the White House directly to gunwalking. If you have some reliable sources that he doesn't have, I'd like to see them so that they can be included. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Scandal"

The word "scandal" evokes emotional responses as well as partisan bickering. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was a "scandal", the Watergate scandal was a "scandal". The gun-walking controversy is too nascent and politicized to be deemed a "scandal". I believe "controversy" would better suit this article and its contents.--Drdak (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know...I think it qualifies as a scandal, in some ways more so than Lewinsky. However, I don't feel too strongly about your suggestion either way, so I wouldn't stand in the way of a change. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gunwalking has been described as a "scandal" at CBS News (Susan Attkinsson), NYT (Sheryl Gay Stolberg), Politico (Josh Gerstein), Huffington Post (Laura Carlsen). Scandal is what it is seen as by many outside WP. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is more of a controversy or a political tussle than a scandal at this point. However, this article as presently written is not about a controversy or a scandal, most of it simply describes the events of the program. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Boston Herald and Outdoor Wire would be considered unreliable sources. Outdoor Wire been published online daily for over 11 years, and covers a broad range of topics related to outdoor sports and firearms. I've been reading it for many years and have always found it to be reliable and unbiased, with a lot of inside information that turns out to be accurate. Naturally, the Fast and Furious scandal (and don't let anybody tell you it's not a scandal with over 200 people dead) has attracted a lot of attention from lawful gun owners in the United States. It's funny how such news organizations as CBS News and the Washington Post have decided that the many distinctions between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious aren't worth discussing. Wide Receiver was a legitimate, if poorly executed, law enforcement sting operation. Fast & Furious was just plain stupid at best and criminal at worst, and it was done with the blessing of Justice Department officials who should have known better. The details about the difference between these two operations are surfacing in several publications, the coverage is consistent (for example, they're all saying that tracking devices were put into the Wide Receiver guns), and I think these details are notable and reliably sourced. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your edits aren't even a close call. Of the two references you have inserted in the article, one is labeled as an opinion piece from what is a paper with a point of view (Herald), and the other (Outdoor Wire) is blatantly written from a point of view. Just read the piece you cite and the author is clearly advocating for certain opinions and actions. Additionally, the editorial policy and other standards of that website are unknown. I've never seen, in a single mainstream publication, a number of the claims made there, such as the RFID tags. I've seen the claim often in partisan publications that like to cite each other, but never from a true reliable source, and the implication that the RFID tags could be used to continuously monitor the guns seems unlikely anyway - RFID tags are generally useful more as barcodes than GPS locators. That's just one example of what sounds like very dubious info. On top of all of that, you've inserted a number of claims that are completely missing from the listed sources. I see nothing in the Outdoor Wire piece about Fast and Furious being present in 10 cities in 5 states (and this claim will sound incredibly suspect to anyone who is knowledgeable on the topic). Going back to RFID, your source says some guns had it, while you say all guns had it. The 1,300 number you inserted, while fairly self-evident if you do the math, is not stated in the article and is best left out without another source. The number of Mexicans killed should also not be hard to find from a better source. You see the theme. I'm reverting again. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

NRA Political Involvement

I was surprised that this article made no mention of the NRA's involvement with this "scandal" and with the contempt proceeding against Holder. Does it not seem appropriate to track their involvement? Jwhester (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've heard only a little about suggested NRA influence...I don't know if it really needs to be included, but if you have a good source and you want to put a couple of sentences in there give it a shot. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a good source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/28/republicans-not-backing-down-on-contempt-votes/ . As the NRA is publicly demanding a yes vote, and stating that it will score a no vote negatively. 216.96.230.215 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortune article

Recent reporting (particularly the Fortune article linked by other editors already) seems to contradict a good deal of previously reported information, some of which is in this article. In particular, its discussion of motives and characterization of internal ATF disagreements. As a result, I think it may be best to completely remove specific details and implications about the internal disagreements, as this could even be construed as a WP:BLP issue. It may also call for going into more detail about the various reported causes for guns being allowed to walk. Any thoughts? hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the information in this FoxNews article regarding Dodson's plan to walk guns to Isaias Fernandez may also may necessitate some rethinking of the narrative currently being conveyed by this Wikipedia entry. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, this Fortune article is a load of shit. The only agents Eban interviewed are those with the most to lose when the fallout from this really hits. Rescarpment (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was about to link to this article, and suggest talk about it. Interesting that a random IRS agent knows so much about this operation that nobody in the Department of Justice knows anything about. Also, I think many dates in this article need years attached, as "On May 3, Attorney" could easily be read to mean 2012, while I believe it refers to 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Editorializing

I don't see how Fortune magazine deserves to make that kind of editorial comment in the first paragraph of this article, as if they were some kind of ultimate authority on Fast and Furious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.227.163 (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As an in-depth report, it is an authority on the subject. Nonetheless, the conclusion is a journalistic flourish, and is pretty clearly the authors' opinion / analysis of the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Fortune investigation isn't any more or less an "ultimate athority" than the other 17 sources also cited in the lede of this article. I agree that the conclusion that "the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels" is indeed the conclusion of the journalists after their analysis of the subject. Was there another expectation? I don't see the "flourish"; it appears to be a rather straight-forward statement, which is extensively substantiated in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

House committee response

CNN/Fortune Article

This article it's timing and content seem to be very political, released the day before the contempt vote in congress.

Statement by Becca Watkins, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform spokeswoman, has issued the following statement: “Fortune’s story is a fantasy made up almost entirely from the accounts of individuals involved in the reckless tactics that took place in Operation Fast and Furious. It contains factual errors – including the false statement that Chairman Issa has called for Attorney General Holder’s resignation – and multiple distortions. It also hides critical information from readers – including a report in the Wall Street Journal – indicating that its primary sources may be facing criminal charges. Congressional staff gave Fortune Magazine numerous examples of false statements made by the story’s primary source and the magazine did not dispute this information. It did not, however, explain this material to its readers. The one point of agreement the Committee has with this story is its emphasis on the role Justice Department prosecutors, not just ATF agents, played in guns being transferred to drug cartels in Mexico. The allegations made in the story have been examined and rejected by congressional Republicans, Democrats, and the Justice Department.”

Should this link be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamLiw (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya think? This has to be one of the most blatent revisionist history attempts I have ever seen. Now that it has reached an endpoint the new goal by the administration seems to be "Guess what, it never happened!". Not sure which is worse, that the Obama administration is pushing this narrative, or that people actually believe it. On a side note, if this is actually true, then what is Obama protecting? Arzel (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, you choose to believe politicians over the sources? If the involved politicians' denials of the material reported in the Fortune article is of any weight or credibility, then secondary sources will likely cover it. Meanwhile, The Fortune article is a lot more credible than much of the rest of the Wikipedia article, which apart from being somewhat rambling and aimless seems to miss the entire political dimension of the scandal. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a hot button issue, but let's try to retain a neutral tone, shall we? This is not a political discussion forum.204.65.34.55 (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am okay with leaving this source out of this section until others have had the opportunity to discuss whether it should be included. LiamLiw (or others) -- can you find a less partisan and more detailed description of the article's inaccuracies? The Becca Watkins statement says that Issa did not call for Holder's resignation, but a cursory search shows that Issa called on Holder to "lead or resign." There's a semantic argument over whether or not "lead or resign" is actually a call for resignation, but I hardly think it's a gross inaccuracy that would disqualify the article from inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherpioneer (talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that would justify inclusion of the House committee response.[1] The UPI news story covers the Fortune story as an allegation and claims (rather than an investigation and conclusion), and also covers the response mentioned above. I've found only a few other reliable sources that cover the Fortune article, and none are of equivalent weight or reliability. A Politico piece[2] merely mentions that the article was written but does not analyze the article's trustworthiness. Same with a Business Insider piece.[3] Then a bunch of random chirping pro and con from news blogs, editorials, etc.[4][5] News sources don't often report on each other's articles as news events in themselves (their own version of WP:NAVEL) so we probably won't get a whole lot of insightful nonpartisan analysis on just how accurate the Fortune story is. Plus, with the Supreme Court ruling on health care, there's not going to be a lot of attention on the Fortune allegations for the moment. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By most of the comments in this section, I can predict exactly where the people making them fall on the political fight over this issue. Congratulations, I guess, on making your political points, but I don't care. The Fortune article provides what appears to be an in-depth, verifiable, NPOV (as much as these kinds of articles can be, which is saying less than I wish it were) source for information on this topic. That this article disagrees with other sources or doesn't deal with certain issues or statements in the depth that others might wish doesn't change this. I wouldn't suggest that our WP article be thrown out and replaced with info from Fortune. I wouldn't suggest that we say that Fortune is right, and everyone else has been disproven . My question is, via wiki policy, can anyone tell me why we shouldn't take Fortune into account? Is there any policy/guideline reason that we shouldn't modify information about internal ATF disagreements, and at least elaborate on the different possible reasons that guns were allowed to walk? Because I think there are several reasons that we should make those changes. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the Fortune article doesn't fit with wiki policy. This just out, and yes it is political but I think the Fortune article is very biased. I don't think this is an example of unbiased reporting.

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41536

For Immediate Release June 28, 2012

Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and Editors Re: Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious Da: Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Fortune magazine piece on Operation Fast and Furious is problematic in several respects. Sen. Chuck Grassley began investigating the circumstances of the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry 18 months ago after whistleblowers came to him with concerns. The following statement is from Grassley’s office. Supporting documents are available here.

“The Fortune piece conspicuously ignores the most important fact in this case: ATF encouraged cooperating dealers to sell guns to known traffickers. That fact is key to understanding how ATF made a strategic choice to track the guns instead of stop them. The central claim of the article, that there was nothing ATF could have done to stop the illegal sales, is simply incompatible with the evidence. If it is true that ATF could not interdict and seize weapons due to legal hurdles beyond its control, then ATF had no business telling gun dealers to go ahead with the sales.

“The Fortune article asks the reader to believe that sworn statements by whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to expose the truth for Brian Terry’s family are merely conspiratorial fabrications for the sole purpose of getting back at their boss. It asks the reader to believe that the ATF Director, the Attorney General, the White House, and Congress all fell victim to the fabrication and completely misinterpreted or misunderstood the thousands of pages of documents that corroborate the whistleblower allegations. The Justice Department retracted its previous denials of those allegations last December 2. If the Fortune article is accurate, the Justice Department’s December 2 retraction would itself be a false capitulation under political pressure aimed at protecting senior DOJ officials at the expense of ATF field office personnel in Arizona.

“The Fortune article inexplicably credits the self-serving statements of the supervisors in Arizona responsible for overseeing Fast and Furious. There is no explanation as to why, given their obvious motive to claim there was no gun-walking to save themselves from criticism and punishment. That’s why the written records, the interviews on the record, and obtaining and weighing all evidence is so important. We can only draw fair, informed conclusions from the facts.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamLiw (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but the defense of the Fortune article by Hazydan is pretty lame. The following is a quote from his "defense":"The Fortune article provides what appears to be an in-depth, verifiable, NPOV (as much as these kinds of articles can be, which is saying less than I wish it were) source for information on this topic." He then contradicts himself, in the very next sentence, on the issue of verifiability: "That this article disagrees with other sources or doesn't deal with certain issues or statements in the depth that others might wish doesn't change this." So, the Fortune article is in-depth and verifiable, even though it is contradicted by multiple other sources and it isn't as in-depth as other articles on the subject? How exactly is it more verifiable than the multiple other articles that are admittedly in contradiction with the Fortune article? Statements made by the Fortune article are not verified merely because they exist. Here is another gem: "I wouldn't suggest that we say that Fortune is right, and everyone else has been disproven." You could have fooled me. That is exactly what you are saying. That the Fortune article is the only article deemed worthy of mentioning in the lead would seem to indicate whoever wrote this entry also believes that multiple other sources are wrong, whereas the Fortune article is right. Getting back to the subject of verifiability, it would seem that mulitple individuals involved in the investigation have pointed out numerous errors with the supposedly "verifiable" Fortune story. Another commenters reaction to the errors:"Interesting, you choose to believe politicians over the sources." Sources? One could ask why several people have chosen to believe Fortune rather than numerous other sources that contradict Fortune. I think we all know the answer to that question. Unless someone is willing to mention Grassley's statement in regards to the errors and assertions in the Fortune article and also detail the fact that the Fortune article is contradicted by multiple other sources, the mention of that article in the opening needs to be removed. That it is given precedence over every other report on the topic is pretty clear evidence of bias.74.141.154.28 (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting my remarks, and attributing statements or opinions to me that I do not have. Re-read what I said, keeping in mind that I was also responding to the concerns of others, and read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV. I am not defending anything, or believing anything. The Fortune article is about as reliable, and the information in it considered as verifiable, as any other source. No more, no less. While I don't much care whether it is mentioned in the lede or not, it should be mentioned because its analysis differs so much from most other sources. Our entire article largely coincides with the assertions of Fortune's critics, so to claim that just by mentioning Fortune we are biased in its favor is nonsense. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 08:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Format seems backwards,,

The format of the article seems inverted...one would expect an article on the programs, with a section on the "scandal" that resulted. Certainly there is precedent for scandal-as-primary sorts of articles (like Watergate), but in that case there isn't a program it's a part of...the scandal is the whole deal. In this case, I think we have a series of operations, part of which involved a scandal. I fear we're following the current events focus on the scandal and putting teh programs in the context of the scandal, instead of putting the scandal in the context of the programs. It's understandable because the issues surrounding the failures of the program are the most prominent right now. However, in terms of long term structure it seems like it makes more sense to refer to the operations (perhaps as "ATF Gunwalking Operations") and then have subdivisions for the operations and the issues that arose from them. While I understand it's not the arbiter, google results are at least an indication of the relative prevalance of a term. "ATF gunwalking scandal" without any modification, got me abut 54,000 hits. "ATF fast and furious" got about 1,280,000 results. I'm struggling to see why we would not entitle the article based on the most commonly used reference in secondary sources...especially given my first point about the scandal being a part of the programs, not vice versa.204.65.34.55 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding titles, we already have "Operation Fast and Furious", and it properly redirects to that specific information -- as already noted when the same naming issue was raised just 3 days ago by User:87442 Charles a few sections above. As for article format highlighting and focusing on the scandals, have we defined exactly what the scandalous parts are? If it is that "hundreds of guns 'walked' across the border", that would apply to multiple operations. If it is that "hundreds of guns have shown up at crime scenes", that applies to guns trafficked under multiple operations, too. Are the specific killings (Terry, Zapata and others) related to the various operations the scandalous part? I have no objection to creating a section for each specific operation (Hernandez Op, Medrano Op, Baytown, F&F, Wide Receiver, et al) and then explaining the results, failures and issues -- but what "scandal" qualification must they first meet to qualify for inclusion in our article? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

straw purchasing is not in itself illegal????

Quote the article: "A 2009 GAO report on efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico notes that straw purchasing is not in itself illegal...."

This is the ATF guide line on straw purchasing:

---

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/index.htm

Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 (Revised - 9/05)] Page 165

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.

---

Straw purchasing is illegal. Notice the bona fide gift exception: this did not apply in Fast & Furious. The cartel buyers supplied the funds to the straw purchasers, or reimbursed the straw purchasers, plus the cartel buyers paid a premium to the straw purchasers for the guns. The straw purchasers transferred the guns to the actual buyers almost immediately. In no way shape or form does this meet the bona fide gift exemption.

To say that the transactions allowed by the Phoenix AZ USAO in Fast & Furious were not illegal and could not be prosecuted is BS: the Texas USAO has not had problems prosecutiong straw purchasers and cartel buyers under Project Gunrunner standard operating procedure. This is like the Phoenix AZ USAO refusing to prosecute marijuana cases involving less than 500 lbs. It is not that it is not illegal or impossible to prosecute: the Phoenix USAO simply did not want to prosecute cases that other USAOs would prosecute.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has claimed that the straw purchases in OFF were legal. I have seen claims that straw purchasing can be legal under some circumstances. I have also seen claims that the AG in these cases either felt that enough evidence of illegality didn't exist, or that they didn't yet have enough of it, to make arrests immediately. I'm not saying that they behaved rationally, of course, but irrational behavior has been the hallmark of this whole situation from the beginning. This particular irrational behavior, sadly, seems about as plausible as all the rest. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 04:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This WP article paraphrased the GAO report on straw purchasing being not illegal: the actual note in the GAO reads: "39. While straw purchasing is not in itself illegal, it is illegal to intentionally provide false information in connection with the acquisition of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)." The definition of straw purchasing 'is' supplying false information in regards to the actual buyer of the gun. The GAO quote is as irrational as writing barn burning is not a crime but it is illegal to commit arson of a building.

Under Wikipedia: Project Gunrunner:

"By early 2009, Project Gunrunner had resulted in approximately 650 cases by ATF, in which more than 1,400 defendants were referred for prosecution in federal and state courts and more than 12,000 firearms were involved."

citing: "FBI Fact Sheet: Department of Justice efforts to combat Mexican Drug Cartels". Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). April 2, 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fact-sheet-department-of-justice-efforts-to-combat-mexican-drug-cartels

It is hard to accept the argument that under Operation Fast and Furious (Jan 2010 thru 25 Jan 2011) it somehow became impossible to bring cases, prosecute straw purchasers/buyers or sieze guns intended for illegal trafficking to Mexico. Also note that while gun trafficking is not a (specific, defined) crime, straw purchasing and dealing in firearms without a FFL are illegal and can be prosecuted under existing law if there is a will to do so. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem knowledgeable on this topic but I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Straw buying is not illegal by definition. You can straw buy as a gift, and indicate your plans on the required forms. It's lying in order to straw buy that is illegal, along with giving the gun to criminals, etc. Fortune seems to be claiming that the attorneys didn't feel comfortable arresting buyers immediately, because they didn't yet have evidence of the lie, which allowed all this to happen as a result. We may think this is less likely than a bunch of people agreeing as a tactic to allow this to happen, but what we think isn't very important. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"You can straw buy as a gift." According to ATF, if I buy a gun with my own money to give as a bona fide Xmas gift to my son, it is not a "straw buy": (a)my money, (b)I am buyer of record on the 4473, (c)no money received in return, (d)the gun gifted to a non-prohibited person (he has passed BG checks for his own gun purchases & for handgun carry permit). ATF has informed me, that if I took money from my daughter-in-law and bought a gun for her to give as a gift to my son, that would be an illegal straw buy: (a)not my money, (b)the buyer of record is falsified (to ATF the actual buyer would be the DIL), (c) and (d) irrelevant. On appeal to federal district court, you might get a straw buy overturned if all parties involved are non-prohibited persons but do check attorny fees involved in pleading a case to that level. Please re-read the ATF explanation of "straw purchase" I posted above. Most USAOs in the USA (including CA, NM and TX) have had few qualms prosecuting single gun straw buyers. Don't tell people they can straw buy as a gift. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortune Article - redux

Doesnt anyone think the Fortune article, relying almost solely on the statements of David Voth is a bit self serving? For example, this line from the article and sourced to the Fortune piece kind of smacked me in the face:

“However, other accounts of the operation insist that ATF agents were prevented from intervening not by ATF officials, but rather by federal prosecutors with the Attorney General's office, who were unsure of whether the agents had sufficient evidence to arrest suspected straw-buyers. “

These arent “other accounts”, this is Voth playing CYA. He sent an email on April 2, 2010 where he assured the agents in Phoenix that not arresting the straw buyers was all part of the big picture [6]

“Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during the month of March alone, to include numerous Barrett .50 caliber riffles. I believe we are righteous in our plan to dismantle this entire organization and to rush in to arrest any one person without taking in to account the entire scope of the conspiracy would be ill advised to the overall good of the mission”

Rescarpment (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I missed that part of the article that states the investigation relied solely on "the statements of David Voth". Could you point me to that specifically? It seems to contradict the article's statement that it interviewed far more people, and reviewed extensive documents. Also, your personal interpretation of the Voth letter's meaning is interesting, but you appear to be reading more into it than what is actually stated. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Dont split hairs, Voth accounts for most of the story's content and considering he's up shit creek without a paddle. My interpretation of the letter also happens to be shared by Charles Grassley but dont take my word for it, read it yourself. Rescarpment (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Katherine Eban claimed five sources said that ATF had no gun walking tactic in Operation Fast & Furious. Were those five the heads of Operation Fast and Furious who were removed from their jobs in Aug 2011:

• Dennis Burke, US Attorney for Phoenix AZ under OF&F, retired.
• Kenneth Melson, ATF director, transferred to DoJ.
• David Voth, supervisor Phoenix, transferred to HQ office job.
• Bill Newell, SAC Phoenix, xfr to HQ.
• William McMahon, ATF deputy director of operations, xfr to HQ.

All but McMahon are named in the Fortune article. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

She only spoke with people whose asses are in a real pinch now that the shit is hitting the fan. Self serving, definately but the royal throne sniffers in the media are doing all they can on this. Rescarpment (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fortunes Conclusion that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels

Is she serious? Holder admitted they did exactly that when he withdrew the letter from his DOJ to Congress which had previously stated that this didn’t happen, and he then admitted that the information was incorrect. Rescarpment (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to relax and stop edit warring. You clearly have a strong opinion on the topic, but as I mentioned on your talk page, most of your edits are either using unreliable sources or misquoting/misinterpreting sources. The sources you are using for information about Wide Receiver guns are not NPOV. One of your most recent edits, regarding ATF policy/practice, uses a source that doesn't say that gunwalking was against policy. It quotes one person saying that in testimony. Since this issue is already covered more reliably in our article, this is also a completely unnecessary addition. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Identification of individual firearm

It is my understanding that federal law prohibits the ATF from creating a database of firearms. How are these firearms related back to the Fast and Furious? EconModerate (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

ATF cannot by law create a database of all legal firearms purchasers. Firearms in a criminal investigation can be traced through the manufacturer or importer records through the distribution system to the retail dealer transaction to the individual buyer on a 4473 form (which requires photo ID and a NICS background check), which form remains in possession of the dealer. If a dealer goes out of business, the 4473s are turned over to the ATF. It can be quickly determined if a gun was made in, or imported into, the U.S. through the maker/importer records. Determining the retail purchaser takes more effort to track down the 4473, but can be done if needed in an investigation. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted the edits of a brand-spankin' new editor here. The edits cite an ABC article that doesn't mention Fast & Furious; they remove properly sourced content; they violate WP:SYNTH with phrases like "However..." when the sources indicate no such connection; and they use phrases such as "Obama's refusal to cooperate..." and "shows the president's broken claim..." as statements of fact which are unsupported by the cited sources -- and are instead assertions by politician's spokespersons. What is the new editor trying to convey to Wikipedia readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

how does an article getupdate to reflect

"I recently heard Katherine Eban talk about her reporting on “fast and furious” on the NPR show “The Connection” (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/07/02/fast-and-furious-fortune ) If she is right, those people who have been attacking Eric Holder (primarily D Issa and his committee in congress) has been perpetuating an enormous scam, a scam so large that it is astonishing

Under AZ law, it is legal for an 18 year old without a record to walk into a store and buy 20 AK47s with cash (apparently, stores advertise discounts for bulk purchases). And, it is legal for that 18yro to walk outside and sell those guns to someone else. The ATF was monitoring this, but under AZ and Fed law, they could arrest someone only if they had reasonable suspicion that one of the buyers had illegal goal: in the USA, you can't arrest someone cause you don't like em (at least in theory) or you suspect that they are a Drug Cartel Gun Buyer; you need evidence. The ATF could also make an arrest if the saw that the guns were going across the border (a violation of export law). The ATF agents were trying very, very hard to make cases, by monitoring and wiretapping, trying to build cases against this constant illegal activity (upwards of 2,000 guns a DAY go into mexico from the US) However, due to these laws, in many cases they were unable to make a case; in one instance, a gun sale occurred on the Sat of MLK holiday, and by the time the ATF agents got wind of the sale, the guns were gone for 3 days.

Further, there have been accusations that there is a list of “2,000 guns” supposedly walked deliberatley into Mexico so that ATF agents could track the cartel. Total lie – this is just a list the ATF compiled of LEGAL but questionable sales, those same sales they were trying as hard as they could to stop. So, you can see the whole story that the ATF was letting known criminals make straw purchases so they could follow guns is a total perversion of the truth, which is that lax gun laws pushed by the NRA and GOP caused this problem. Further, at least some of the ATF whistleblowers who testified to congress are suspect; one of them was not stationed in Phoenix , nor a part of FnF, and this agent had a long document history of antagonism with his superiors (complaining about the email ringtone on his computer, but, oddly, no complaints about FnF)

For reasons not entirely clear, the Obama admin is going along with this; it could be that they don’t want to upset the NRA/gun lobby prior to the election, or that they are incompetent (their inability to sell healthcare reform points to incompetence or arrogance)."24.91.51.31 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)